PEOPLE v. LABELLE

The slip opinions posted here are
the latest electronic versions available from the Michigan Court
of Appeals. Updates are posted as received from the courts.
Consult the advance sheets and bound volumes of the official
reports for final revisions and proper pagination. Errata and
requests for correction of Michigan Court of Appeals opinions
should be submitted to: Deputy Reporter of Decisions, 800
Washington Square Building, Lansing, MI 48933; (517) 373-0714.

PEOPLE v. LABELLE

July 31, 1998
No. 200253

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

Ionia Circuit Court

GORDON LABELLE, LC No. 96-010661 FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Talbot, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of malicious
destruction of a building over $100, MCL 750.380; MSA 28.612.
Defendant was subsequently adjudicated to be an habitual
offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12; MSA 1084, and was sentenced
to five to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals by
right. We affirm.

Defendant first argues that evidence of the labor costs
incurred in repairing the damage to the building was improperly
admitted for the purpose of showing the amount of damage to the
building. We disagree. This Court has held, in cases involving
the malicious destruction of personalty over one hundred
dollars,[1] that the amount of the damage caused by the defendant
may be established by showing either the difference in the
property’s fair market value, or the reasonable cost to repair or
restore the property. People v Hamblin, 224 Mich
App 87, 96; 568 NW2d 339 (1997). The cost of labor is an
essential part of the cost of repair. Hamblin, supra
at 100. Although Hamblin concerned the malicious
destruction of personalty, the analysis employed in Hamblin
is equally applicable in this case. Indeed, the sole distinction
between the statute prohibiting the malicious destruction of
personalty over one hundred dollars and the statute prohibiting
the malicious destruction of a building over one hundred dollars
is the language describing the damaged property.[2] Accordingly,
we conclude that the prosecutor properly presented evidence of
the reasonable cost of repair to the building to show the amount
of damage caused by the defendant.

Defendant also argues that his wearing of ankle shackles at
trial denied him his right to a fair trial. However, there is no
evidence in the lower court record to support defendant’s
assertion that he was in fact shackled. Consequently, this Court
declines to review this issue.

Any person who shall wilfully and maliciously destroy or
injure the personal property of another . . . if the damage
resulting from such injury shall exceed $100.00, shall be guilty
of a felony.

MCL 750.380; MSA 28.612 states in pertinent part:

Any person who shall wilfully and maliciously destroy . . .
any house, bar, or other building of another . . . if the damage
resulting from such injury shall exceed $100.00, shall be guilty
of a felony.